Consumer Unit installed May 2015

[richierich81]

Hello,

I'm just selling my house and am completing the sellers form. I had a new consumer unit installed in May 2015 and some new wiring installed in the kitchen for a new cooker and induction hob etc...

I don't recall receiving a certificate at the end of this work and I haven't got one in my files (I'm good at filing things normally) which would suggest I didn't receive one. I've also got the invoice for the works and this doesn't mention a certificate.

My question is - should I have received a certificate for this work? Could I contact the electrician and ask for one? Or are these things stored at the Local Authority?

This was the work I had carried out...

Replace old fuse box with a new 17th edition dual RCD consumer unit.
Install bonding to be attached to incoming Gas supply and Incoming Water supply
Install Electrics for kitchen refit.
Relocation and addition of sockets, new circuit for Induction hob, New circuit for double oven, new Lighting.
Sockets supplied: 1x 5 Packet Black Nickel socket, 1x extra double Black Nickel socket, 1x single Black Nickel socket, 2x Black Nickel Switched Fused Spurs.


Thank you for your help.

 

[flameport]

You should have received an installation certificate with details of the work done and test results for all of the circuits connected to the new consumer unit.
The consumer unit was also notifiable work and should have been notified to building control.

Could I contact the electrician and ask for one? Or are these things stored at the Local Authority?

You could. Whether they can supply a copy of it is another matter.
If it was notified, the local authority will have a record of the notification, but they won't have the installation certificate.

 

[ericmark]

I know my work was notified, I did one lot myself, and personally delivered the certificate to council offices, so when I could not find my copy I contacted the council for a replacement, not that I should be applying as once in my hands I could alter the figures, to my mind buyer solicitors should apply direct, however it became apparent why not, as council was unable to find the paper work for 4 months as moving, then a charge of £75 an hour for them looking for it, seems the Part P is just a money making thing, and their records were worse than mine, and when reading the completion certificate, it did not relate to any installation certificate, and the installation certificate is not required by law, only the completion, or compliance certificate, so with no reference as to what they cover, it may be law, but clearly no more than a building tax.

So buyers decided they did not need it anyway, and then I found them so were passed over to them. Point is on change of occupant it needs an EICR anyway so the old certificates are not needed, think if I had not found them, may need to take out some insurance.

New house they passed on the paperwork, all the test figures, looked great, then found another fuse box still in use hidden between ceiling and roof, so all the nice paperwork only covered the flat under the house, again just a money making exercise.

 

[winston1]

Point is on change of occupant it needs an EICR anyway

Source?

 

[JohnW2]

Source?

In something Scottish, perhaps?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

In something Scottish, perhaps?

I took it to be basic common sense. No certificate could ever prove that a house wiring has not been 'adjusted' in a dangerous way. The whole certificate thing is very overrated, but examining the wiring is the only sure way of knowing the state of it, at any point in time.

 

[JohnW2]

I took it to be basic common sense. No certificate could ever prove that a house wiring has not been 'adjusted' in a dangerous way. The whole certificate thing is very overrated, but examining the wiring is the only sure way of knowing the state of it, at any point in time.

Yes, it is common sense - although I am sure that (unless/until they are 'forced') many (most?) landlords in England and Wales probably don't do it routinely. The thing that winston (and then myself) responded to was that eric seemed to imply the existence of some official 'requirement' for an EICR on change of occupancy - and, as far as I am aware, that is not the case, at least not in England and Wales.

There is also perhaps the question of the frequency of 'change of occupancy'. In the case of some blocks of flats/rooms and other tings (e.g. 'student accommodation' or, even worse, 'holiday lets') that may happen once per year, sometimes more frequently than that, and I wonder whether is really would be appropriate/necessary to require 'full EICRs' to be undertaken that frequently?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Yes, I think that rentals will depend on the people handling the management requiring something in addition to the legal requirements just to cover themselves. So may be a requirement in practice, though not in law. However, let's face it, I have no idea what Eric had in mind, so I'd best let him respond!

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I think that rentals will depend on the people handling the management requiring something in addition to the legal requirements just to cover themselves. So may be a requirement in practice, though not in law. However, let's face it, I have no idea what Eric had in mind, so I'd best let him respond!

Indeed. However, it would be far from the first time that eric has suggested (despite being corrected) that there is a legal requirement (in E&W) for an EICR on changes in occupancy, in the same way that he still persists in referring to notification requirements as being "Part P".

In any event, as I said, even if there were a legal requirement, there would presumably have to be a sensible definition of "change in occupancy", since it would be hardly sensible to require that a full EICR had to undertaken every couple of weeks in the case of a 'holiday let'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Agreed all of that. However the OP gave no hint of this involving rentals. He is just selling his house. So, that is why I assumed we were just talking about the common sense thought that one should have an EICR done when buying a house.
Standing by for comments from Eric...

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed all of that. However the OP gave no hint of this involving rentals. He is just selling his house. So, that is why I assumed we were just talking about the common sense thought that one should have an EICR done when buying a house. Standing by for comments from Eric...

All true.

As I said, my assumption (maybe incorrect - as you say, only eric can tell us) was that eric was yet again repeating his incorrect information about the requirement for an EICR on a change of occupancy.

As for buying/selling, extremely few sellers have an EICR done for the purpose of the sale, and I'm sure that a very appreciable proportion of buyers (quite probably a majority) don't either.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

If such buyers are assuming they will need a lot of wiring done anyway, and are prepared for the cost, then that makes sense. If they just assume it will be fine, then that is their lookout. Caveat emptor.

 

[JohnW2]

If such buyers are assuming they will need a lot of wiring done anyway, and are prepared for the cost, then that makes sense.

Indeed, but ....

If they just assume it will be fine, then that is their lookout. Caveat emptor.

I get the impression that such is the most common situation.

Kind Regards, john

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I get the impression that such is the most common situation.

I agree. I've seen such disasters first hand. Do you have a solution?

 

[JohnW2]

I agree. I've seen such disasters first hand. Do you have a solution?

Not one I would want/like to see implemented (although 'Nanny' might) - compulsory (and well-policed) EICRs on house purchase (and maybe even 'regularly') would, for what it's worth, ensure that EICRs were carried out.

However, given how very rare it is for even 'dangerous' electrical installations to do any harm to anyone or anything, and given the limitations of EICRs, I'm not convinced that there is actually a problem that requires a 'solution' (again, other perhaps, than in the eyes of 'Nanny') - i.e. I'm not convinced that very widespread and frequent EICRs would actually change very much.

As you said yourself, "caveat emptor" - and one only has to look in this forum to see that there is a wide spectrum of variation in the degree of risk-averseness - which will result in an equally wide spectrum of views as to how great a risk has to be to warrant any concern/action. In other words, I believe that it is the "emptor" (who's individual views about risk should be respected) that needs to "caveat", not some officialdom on their behalf.

Kind Regards, John